[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A question on PariNAma and vivarta

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

One way 13.8 can be reconciled with 13.46-49 is to hold that the same
pot-clay and gold-ornament examples can be used to explain *both* pariNAma
and vivarta vAda - the difference is what is taken as the kAraNa, and
therefore what constitutes the svarUpa of the kAraNa.

In 13.8 and 13.9, pariNAma is defined as avasthAntaratApatti: and vivarta
as avasthAntara bhAnam. On that basis, here the kAraNa is taken as mrit
piNDa - a lump of clay.  The shape of the clay lump is taken as a
fundamental part of the kAraNa, which undergoes a real change into the pot.

Thus, on the grounds that there is an avasthAntara Apatti, VidyAraNya
argues here that this is an example of pariNAma, rather than vivarta. To
reiterate, here shape is taken as a key part of the mrit-piNDa's (kAraNa's)
avasthA, which undergoes a real modification and therefore is a pariNAma.

In 13.48, the material clay is taken as a the kAraNa, with shape being an
incidental guNa.  Because there is no change in the molecular composition
of the clay in a lump or in a pot, VidyAraNya says this is an example of
vivarta. Therefore svarUpa aparityAgAt, the same example is classified as
vivarta here, which is different from ksIra-dadhi pariNAma, where there is
pUrva rUpa tyAga.

Because he used the same example previously to argue for pariNAma,
VidyAraNya only says in 13.51 that "drishTAntatvam na hIyate" - there are
no reasons to prevent us from citing this as an example for vivarta. Which
is very different from taking an absolute position as this being ONLY an
example of vivarta OR pariNAma.

Ultimately, the utility of a drishTAnta is in proving its dArshTAnta, so
while it can be argued both ways, it is more helpful to use this example in
establishing that from Brahman's perspective, the jagat is a vivarta of
Brahman, not pariNAma.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 7 Feb 2017 4:55 p.m., "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> We also have yet another reference in Shankara's bhashya where he hols the
> 'vācārambhaṇa śruti' to identify the vivarta vāda:
>
> सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् ।
> यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं
> तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । *अतो विकारोऽनृतम् , **‘ वाचारम्भणं
> विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/
> Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S01_V04&hl=%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%
> BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%
> A4%A3%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%
> B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%87%
> E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%
> A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%
> E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D
> >
> एवं
> सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।*
>
> The above is from the Taittiriya bhāṣya, for the word 'satyam'. Shankara
> says that whatever undergoes transformation, vikāra, is mithyā, anṛtam. And
> he goes on to cite the Chandogya passage and further affirms that the
> Shruti emphasizes that 'Sat', Existence, the mūlakāraṇam, alone is Satyam.
>
> Also, in the Brahmasutra bhashya 2.1.14 (ārambhaṇādhikaraṇa) too Shankara
> reiterates that very principle: the unreality of the effects and the
> reality of the cause alone:
>
> कार्यमाकाशादिकं बहुप्रपञ्चं जगत् ; कारणं परं ब्रह्म ;
> तस्मात्कारणात्परमार्थतोऽनन्यत्वं व्यतिरेकेणाभावः कार्यस्यावगम्यते । कुतः
> ? आ
> रम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः । आरम्भणशब्दस्तावदेकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं प्रतिज्ञाय
> दृष्टान्तापेक्षायामुच्यते — ‘ यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं
> विज्ञातꣳ स्याद्वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ ।
> १ । ४)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/
> Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S01_V04&hl=%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%
> A5%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%
> E0%A5%88%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%
> A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A1%
> E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%
> A4%82%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%
> AF%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9E%
> E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%EA%A3%B3%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%
> A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE%
> E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%82%20%E0%
> A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%
> A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%82%20%
> E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%
> 95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%
> E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D>
> इति
> ; एतदुक्तं भवति — एकेन मृत्पिण्डेन परमार्थतो मृदात्मना विज्ञातेन सर्वं
> मृन्मयं घटशरावोदञ्चनादिकं मृदात्मकत्वाविशेषाद्विज्ञातं भवेत् ; यतो
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम् — वाचैव केवलमस्तीत्यारभ्यते — विकारः घटः शराव
> उदञ्चनं चेति ; न तु वस्तुवृत्तेन विकारो नाम कश्चिदस्ति ; नामधेयमात्रं
> ह्येतदनृतम् ; मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् — इति एष ब्रह्मणो दृष्टान्त आम्नातः ;
> तत्र श्रुताद्वाचारम्भणशब्दाद्दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ब्रह्मव्यतिरेकेण
> कार्यजातस्याभाव इति गम्यते ।
>
> Thus, the same 'vācāraṁbhaṇa shruti' is repeatedly held to be the pramāṇa
> for vivartavāda by Shankara.  The rope-snake example Shankara gives in the
> Chandogya 'vācāraṁbhaṇa shruti' bhashya was already presented here.
>
> regards
> vs
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> >
> > At Paramarthika level all Vadas are same. At Vyavaharika level milk
> > turning to curds, gold to ornaments and rope to snake are different.
> > In rope becoming snake there is error and that error is not there in
> > milk turning to curds and gold to ornaments. There is one more example
> > of red flower kept near a colourless crystal. The crystal is appearing
> > red and everyone sees the red crystal even though they know it is not
> > red but colourless. Everyone is seeing sunrise and sunset even though
> > they know Sun will never set and Sun will never rise but Earth
> > rotation is creating this. But in snake example after knowing snake is
> > rope nobody will see a snake.
> >
> > We can give different examples like this with differences but at
> > Paramarthika level they are all same. Brahman is One and there is no
> > Many.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:06 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l
> > <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > PraNams
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just as a final note. I am not disrespecting Shree Vidyaranya swami. As
> > shree lalalitaalalitaa once pointed earlier that we are only addressing
> > issues here  and not the persons involved, and what is the best way to
> > present the apparent transformation that appears to be real at
> > transnational level, with Scriptures forming the ultimate paramaana.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I just completed my talk on the topic and I did present what Shree
> > Vidyaranaya said and also presented my understanding with clear
> distinction
> > between the two. The listener can use their judgement.
> > >
> > >
> > > With this I stop.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hari Om!
> > >
> > > Sadananda
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > -Venkatesh
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>